100 Years of Research in Youth Development

1
Journal of Youth Development
Volume 6, Number 3, Fall 2011

2
Fall 2011
Volume 6 Number 3
Editor’s Comments:
We are delighted to share this thought provoking issue of the Journal of Youth Development
which highlights a century of youth development research and practice. A special thank you is
extended to our guest editors, Michelle Alberti Gambone, Kathrin C. Walker and Joyce A.
Walker, who provided insightful observation and direction throughout the project. In addition,
we are most grateful for our guest authors who so willingly agreed to prepare the enclosed
manuscripts as part of our examination of over a century of youth program development. As a
result, we are presented with an inspiring call for further youth development research, one
which I hope many of you will answer and then share in upcoming issues of the Journal of
Youth Development.
Guest Editors
Dr. Michelle Alberti Gambone, Youth Development Strategies, Inc.
Dr. Kathrin C. Walker, University of Minnesota
Dr. Joyce A. Walker, University of Minnesota
Publication Committee
Patricia Dawson, Editor
Oregon State University
Publications Committee Chair:
Suzanne LeMenestrel
National 4-H Headquarters
NAE4-HA Representatives:
Theresa Ferrari
The Ohio State University
Dale Pracht
University of Florida
Committee Members:
Dale Blyth
University of Minnesota
Lynne Borden
University of Arizona
Kate Walker
Hanh Cao Yu
Social Policy Research Associates
Michael Conn
Girl Scouts of the USA
Michelle Alberti Gambone
Youth Development Strategies, Inc.
Rich Lerner
Tufts University
Alexandra Loukas
The University of Texas at Austin
Christine McCauley Ohannessian
University of Delaware
Christina Theokas
The Education Trust

3
Volume 6, Number 3
Fall 2011
Contents
Feature Articles
Reflections on a Century of Youth Development Research and Practice
[Article 110603FA001]…………………………………………………………………………………….…..Page 7
Walker, Joyce A.; Gambone, Michelle Alberti; Walker, Kathrin C.
This introduction to the special issue highlights the youth development research and practice
base that influenced the field in the 20th
century and presents some historical context for the
practice and study of youth work. Next, it provides an overview of the articles which offer a
retrospective account of youth development from how youth development has been studied,
understood and measured to how youth development practice has evolved to support, engage
and address the needs of young people. The introduction concludes with reflections stimulated
by the process of reviewing the manuscripts and working with the authors on their
contributions. Three themes emerged as good grist for the 21st
century conversations moving
forward: 1) the divergent perspectives on definition, dimensions of practice and accountability,
2) the value of translational scholarship bridging science and complex practice, and 3) the
importance of leveraging systems support for field building.
Trends in Youth Development Topics: An Integrative Review of Positive Youth
Development Research Published in Selected Journals Between 2001-2010
[Article 110603FA002]……………………………………………………………………………………..Page 20
Barcelona, Robert J.; Quinn, William
The body of knowledge related to positive youth development has grown in the last two
decades, yet there have been few, if any, systematic investigations of the research base in the
field. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to identify the trends in research topics and
approaches within the field of positive youth development over the last 10 years by examining
five top-tier research journals plus one research-to-practice journal. Results revealed that only
19% of the manuscripts published in all of the selected journals had a positive youth
development focus, and this was reduced to 13% when just the five top-tier research journals
were considered. Analyses of the positive youth development manuscripts pertaining to
population characteristics, methodology, research setting, and topical areas provide a snapshot
of the trends and gaps in the body of knowledge related to youth development, and have
implications for future research efforts in the field.
Positive Youth Development: Processes, Programs, and Problematics
[Article 110603FA003]………………………………………………………………………………….……Page 40
Lerner, Richard M.; Lerner, Jacqueline V.; Lewin-Bizan, Selva; Bowers, Edmond P.; Boyd,
Michelle J.; Mueller, Megan Kiely; Schmid, Kristina L.; Napolitano, Christopher M.
Using the tripartite conception of positive youth development (PYD) suggested by Hamilton
(1999) – as a developmental process, a philosophy or approach to youth programming, and as
instances of youth programs and organizations focused on fostering the healthy or positive
development of youth – we review different theoretical models of the developmental process

4
involved in PYD. In addition, we review the ideas for and the features of youth development
programs aimed at promoting PYD. We discuss the need for research interrelating different,
theoretically-predicated measures of PYD and, as well, the importance of clear links between
models of the PYD developmental process and of the youth development programs seeking to
enhance PYD among diverse youth. We discuss several conceptual and practical problematics
that must be addressed in order to integrate the three facets of PYD scholarship.
Locating, Analyzing and Making Available a Century of 4-H Research Studies, 1911-
2011 [Article 110603FA004]………………………………………………………………………….….Page 65
Scholl, Jan; Paster, Amy
For years, 4-H has emphasized the value of being a research-based youth organization in its
long term association with the land-grant university system. But, it was the general consensus
among state and national leaders that the program had no research base. The main objectives
of this study were to: locate and document research studies conducted (between 1911-2010) in
order to support or dispel notions about the lack of 4-H research and its focus on cows and
cooking, to make information about the research studies available to the larger community of
youth program practitioners and researchers and provide a general review of research topics by
decade. Three thousand five hundred and fifty six studies were found over a thirteen year
period and only one percent of these related to “cows or cooking.” To make the data available
to current and future youth professionals and researchers, the information about each study
was transferred to an Internet web-site. Finally, a full century of research topics were
summarized.
From Then to Now: Emerging Directions for Youth Program Evaluation
[Article 110603FA005]…………………………………………………………………………..…………..Page 82
Arnold, Mary E.; Cater, Melissa
Understanding the impact of youth development programs has been an important topic since
the programs first began, and the past 25 years in particular have witnessed considerable
advances in the evaluation of youth development programs. This article presents a brief history
of youth development program evaluation, considering how it has changed over the years.
From there, three contemporary trends related to youth program evaluation are examined: 1) a
new evaluation focus, which is the emphasis on evaluating program quality; 2) organizational
structures related to effective program evaluation, primarily in the area of program evaluability
and evaluation capacity building; and 3) an emerging evaluation approach, involving youth in
evaluating the programs that affect them. The article concludes with a call for programs to
attend carefully to program implementation quality.
Diversity and Inclusion in Youth Development: What We Can Learn from
Marginalized Young People [Article 110603FA006]……………………………………….…Page 95
Russell, Stephen T.; Van Campen, Kali
As we commemorate 100 years of youth development programs whose origins are traced to
organizations founded in the United States, we consider key insights as well as strategies
relevant for diversity and inclusion. Many of the large, mainstream youth development
organizations and programs that were founded over a century ago now primarily serve youth in
the “mainstream”: youth from the middle classes, traditional families, and dominant cultural
groups. A growing body of scholarship considers the positive development of youth who are
marginalized due to their social class, ability, sexuality, citizenship status, race, ethnicity, or
culture. We draw insights from studies of youth and families who are immigrants, or who are
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT). These findings provide a vantage point for

5
considering ways that contemporary youth development organizations might stretch the
margins, or adapt their practices, in order to reach and include all youth.
The Many Faces, Features and Outcomes of Youth Engagement
[Article 110603FA007]……………………………………………………………………………………..Page 109
Saito, Rebecca N.; Sullivan, Theresa K.
Civic engagement, experiential education, positive youth development, youth leadership,
service-learning: what is it about these programmatic models that account for their popularity
and impact over decades? What’s at the core, how are they similar and different, and what
differential impacts and benefits might various types or forms of youth engagement affect? The
lack of consensus on conceptual frameworks and definitions of youth participation and
engagement has been identified as one of the issues plaguing the field and restricting progress
of youth engagement research and practice (O’Donoghue, Kirshner & McLaughlin, 2002). The
authors present a conceptual framework called the Rings of Engagement that captures the
myriad ways in which people think about youth engagement. The literature on the benefits and
outcomes of each ring or type of youth engagement is highlighted. The authors conclude with
recommendations for further research which will guide training, stakeholder-driven
communication tools created to garner support, ways to act locally while working at the
intermediary level to provide the supports necessary to promote and support youth
engagement.
The Evolving Role of Youth Workers [Article 110603FA008]……………………….…Page 126
Borden, Lynne M.; Schlomer, Gabriel L.; Wiggs, Christine Bracamonte
In reviewing the field of youth development, of which youth workers are a part, it is clear it has
had a long and complex history that is intertwined with other disciplines. More recently youth
workers have experienced a transformation of sorts, with youth programs in the past being
seen exclusively as a place to play and have fun, whereas today’s expectations include a much
broader focus on the overall positive development of young people. This evolution has been
heavily influenced by a number of societal changes that have placed increasing demands on
youth programs. Today’s youth workers are faced with the responsibility to promote a young
person’s development which often includes supporting academic success and graduation from
high school, reducing risk-taking behaviors, increasing positive health attitudes, and more.
Youth workers have seen their role change dramatically over the past 20 years with greater
demands and increased accountability.
Voluntary Youth-Serving Organizations: Responding to the Needs of Young People
and Society in the Last Century [Article 110603FA009]………………………………….Page 139
LeMenestrel, Suzanne M.; Lauxman, Lisa A.
As many national youth-serving organizations have either celebrated their 100th
anniversaries or
are approaching their centennials, we take a step back to celebrate these organizations’
accomplishments, but also to examine how youth organizations have responded positively to
the youth development philosophy and approach to programming. The focus of this paper is on
those organizations in which participation by youth is voluntary.
New Horizons: Understanding the Processes and Practices of Youth Development
[Article 110603FA010]………………………………………………………………………………….….Page 155
Larson, Reed W.; Kang, Hyeyoung; Perry, S. Cole; Walker, Kathrin C.
This article presents new horizons for research on youth development by focusing on the
challenges youth face in learning teamwork and in coming to terms with diversity. These are
both essential competencies for navigating the “real world” of the 21st
century. We examine

6
how youth experience these challenges within programs; also how they present second-order
challenges to practitioners. The underlying message of this article is that it is essential for
researchers to see programs from the point of view of the people in them. Researchers have
learned quite a bit of what can be learned from arm’s length: that programs can make a
difference in youths’ lives and that certain features of settings are associated with these
changes. To go further, researchers need to work side-by-side with practitioners and youth to
understand their complex worlds as they experience them.
The Future of Youth Development: Multiple Wisdoms, Alternate Pathways and
Aligned Accountability [Article 110603FA011]………………………………..………………Page 167
Blyth, Dale A.
Based on trends and events observed or experienced by the author over the last 30 years in
research, evaluation and practice, this article examines three challenges facing and shaping the
future of the youth programs as contexts for development. The first challenge surrounds how
the field comes to understand, value and integrate different forms of knowing -- particularly
quantitative data. The second challenge represents how the field shifts from proving it makes a
difference to improving the ways it makes a difference by expanding the pathways to impact.
The third challenge regards how the field responds to and shapes accountability pressures in
ways that better align accountability rather than succumb to it. Implications of each challenge
for effectively bridging research and practice are noted.
Call for Papers - Guidelines………………………………………………………………….……………Page 183

7
Reflections on a Century of
Youth Development Research and Practice
Joyce A. Walker
walke007@umn.edu
Michelle Alberti Gambone
Youth Development Strategies, Inc.
Kathrin C. Walker

8
Volume 6, Number 3, Fall 2011 Article 110603FA001
Reflections on a Century of
Youth Development Research and Practice
Joyce A. Walker, Michelle Alberti Gambone and Kathrin C. Walker
Abstract: This introduction to the special issue highlights the youth
development research and practice base that influenced the field in
the 20th
century and presents some historical context for the
practice and study of youth work. Next, it provides an overview of
the articles which offer a retrospective account of youth
development from how youth development has been studied,
understood and measured to how youth development practice has
evolved to support, engage and address the needs of young people.
The introduction concludes with reflections stimulated by the
process of reviewing the manuscripts and working with the authors
on their contributions. Three themes emerged as good grist for the
21st
century conversations moving forward: 1) the divergent
perspectives on definition, dimensions of practice and accountability,
2) the value of translational scholarship bridging science and
complex practice, and 3) the importance of leveraging systems
support for field building.
Editors’ Introductory Notes
This special issue of the Journal of Youth Development: Bridging Research and Practice
highlights the issues in youth development research and practice that have influenced our
growing field in the 20th
century. When this journal’s editorial board decided to publish a special
issue commemorating the 100th anniversary of many national youth-serving organizations
founded between 1907 and 1914, we three guest editors saw a tremendous opportunity to
reflect on research trends and contributions that have influenced the field over time and also to

9
consider issues of practice that continue to evolve and challenge the field. The editorial board
generated an initial list of compelling topics to be considered and identified a number of
contributing authors. As co-editors, we then invited additional authors to fill out the storyline of
how youth development organizations and programs have been studied and delivered
throughout the last century.
The frame for the special issue is bridging research and practice around youth development in
organizational settings and with attention to the impact on the lives of young people. It is
intended to speak broadly to the field and take a view larger than any single youth
organization. The title, “Reflections on a Century of Youth Development Practice and Research,”
emphasizes a historical perspective as well as research findings and critical observations that
have shaped youth development research and practice in youth-serving organizational settings
– as well as exploration of the challenges that continue for researchers and practitioners.
In this introductory article, we begin with some historical context for the practice and study of
youth work. This is followed by an overview of the ten thought-provoking articles and editors’
observations and comments stimulated by the process of reviewing the manuscripts and
working with the authors on their development. Inevitably, not all ideas and issues are covered;
notably, policy implications of research and practice are largely absent. Yet collectively, these
articles begin to provide a retrospective account of youth development over the years, covering
such issues as how youth development has been studied, understood and measured to how
youth development practice has evolved to support, engage and address the needs of young
people.
The 20th
Century Context for 100 Years of Youth Work
The journey from early youth work to modern-day youth development programs is the
evolution of an idea over time. The early years of the 20th
century were a time of great social,
political and economic change for Americans. The historic works of Lawrence Cremin (1964,
1988) tell the story well. Cremin cites the rise of Progressive Education, the expansion of
scientific methods, attention to social welfare and human rights, and the impact of urbanization,
industrialization and immigration as key features shaping the lives of individuals and the
missions of organizations in the early 1900s.
In 1900 most American women could not vote and they would wait another 20 years to do so.
The U.S. Census Bureau lists the median age of the male population at 23 years and females at
22 years; more than half of the population of 76 million was under 23 years of age. There were
no radios and no movies. There were an estimated 8,000 automobiles and 10 miles of paved
roads. Social activism and reform focused on anti-child-labor laws, the expansion of public
education, battles to extend the vote and eliminate corruption in politics and industry, as well as
to emphasize scientific solutions to problems of the day. Progressive educators promoted child-
centered learning and John Dewey’s philosophy of experiential learning coincided with the rise
of juvenile organizations. Religious communities, the temperance movement, settlement houses
and various clubs for young men sponsored public events, study groups, athletic competitions
and Sunday schools for young people in the 19th
century. But the momentum for organizational
support for youth activities really took off in the first 20 years of the 20th
century.
Youth organizations founded, imported and promoted during this time reflect the priorities and
concerns of the young nation. Jane Addams and an army of settlement house workers engaged
poor urban and immigrant children in learning for life in America. Luther Halsey Gulick and his
wife Charlotte founded Camp Fire Girls to promote physical fitness and skills befitting a wife and

10
mother. Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought for play grounds in urban settings while the YMCA
promoted attention to the body, mind and spirit of young men. Ernest Thompson Seton’s
passion for woodcraft lore influenced the Boy Scouts of America as well as the dozens of clubs
and organizations which took children to the woods to explore nature and learn life skills not
taught in the schools. Generally these organizations had missions grounded in health and well-
being, family roles, citizenship, cultural and national pride, handicrafts, and skills for everyday
life and work.
From the beginning, these organizations were not themselves progressive in the sense of being
advocates for educational reform, youth policy or youth advocacy more broadly. They sat
largely outside the world of policy creation and active reform. They were adult-led organizations
with agendas driven by adult concepts of what young people needed and should be doing. They
valued the spirit and energy of young people which could be mobilized for the betterment of
neighborhoods, communities and families. Most of the organizations coalesced around the
explicit values of the sponsoring adult leadership such as the fraternal order of Masons (Order
of DeMolay, 1919 and Order of Job’s Daughters, 1920), the agricultural National Grange
(National Grange Junior, 1888), and Hadassah (Young Judaea Hashachara, 1909).
Group work in these settings typically focused on personal development, leadership within the
faith, cultural or fraternal community value framework, and pursuit of common interests. These
organizations grew organically from the interests and events of the day. They came to be
recognized by affiliation (faith, sports, outdoors, gender) not by academic discipline or field of
study. They were associated with space, place and environment more than with a common
theory, research base or academic specialty. Today the practice of youth work is a vibrant mix
of programs ranging from athletics to leadership, from small group work to national
conventions, from personal growth to community revitalization.
Through the 1950s many community-based youth organizations depended on adult volunteer
leaders and met in the out-of-school time in groups organized in small units like clubs or troops.
Fun, friendships and active learning flourished in these settings. Between 1960 and 1980, in
response to a moral panic around young people and their perceived potential for troublesome,
criminal, self-destructive and generally bad behavior, new youth programs were organized and
the older organizations adopted programs around drug prevention, anti-drunk driving
campaigns (reminiscent of the temperance movement), pregnancy prevention, and productive
alternatives for troubled, vulnerable, at-risk youth. This period is noteworthy in its embrace of
the medical model of problem diagnosis and “fixing kids.” By the 1980s one begins to see the
growing enthusiasm for programs that build or develop young people in positive, normative
ways. Thus enters the concept of youth development, a descriptor widely recognized today but
still lacking a firm definition agreed upon across the field.
The 20th
Century Context for Applied Research on Adolescents
By the early 1900s the American people generally expressed confidence that science and
technology had the capacity to solve problems facing the nation. The history of linking
observation and experimentation is long, but in the early years of the 20th
century the concept
of linking scientific research to practice, education and training in order to impact real-world
problems blossomed. For instance, the Extension land grant system of Agricultural Experiment
Stations demonstrated the value of linking university-based laboratory research and field
experiments to hands-on training for farmers. The scientist and the practitioner worked
together to find solutions to problems, create new plant and animal varieties, and increase

11
production and productivity. Statistics were king and experimental methods reigned supreme in
agriculture as in many other disciplines.
The integration of research and practice in areas such as education, youth work, recreation,
playground work or other areas of child and youth provision was slower to develop and was less
intentional than it was in medicine and other established academic disciplines. John Dewey
instituted the idea of a laboratory school associated with the University of Chicago as a
community-based classroom for scholars and teachers in training. Laboratory schools and child
care centers were common campus institutions throughout most of the 20th
century. Springfield
College in Springfield, Massachusetts became the training center for YMCA leaders and field
secretaries for many years, but was not closely linked to any research institution or tradition of
active field research.
For much of the century, those doing group work with or on behalf of children and young
people relied on research theories and findings in education and human development focused
on individual development. The adolescent was studied, not the context for working with
adolescents in arenas beyond the classroom. Standardized tests were popular and highly valued
as measures of normalcy or deviance. Likewise, the outcomes of prevention and intervention
efforts were measured in terms of individual change with minimal attention to the nature and
role of the contexts, relationships, and engagement strategies associated with that change.
The focus on the individual began to change in the 1970s. The article by Lerner and colleagues
in this issue provides a valuable review of the scholars who studied adolescents from a
developmental perspective and contributed to the research base the youth development field
draws upon today. Theories such as attachment, resiliency and protective factors acknowledged
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s articulation of an ecological model of human development (1976).
Explorations of the ecology of young people’s development had a great influence on
professionals working with children, youth and families in the last quarter of the century.
Bronfenbrenner advocated studying young people in their context, paying attention to the role
people and interactions played in the research. He promoted research of discovery and
understanding in addition to experimental studies and hypothesis testing. His work was
conceptually instrumental in bringing researcher and practitioner closer in the process of study.
In the 1970s the articulation of positive youth development concepts was gaining use in policy
contexts as well as in applied research focused on social group work. One such attempt was a
1973 report commissioned by the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare which
framed a concept of positive development grounded in fundamental human rights with
application across physical, social, emotional, cognitive and moral domains (Konopka, 1973). It
was intended to be a guide for a national youth policy, but the policy part never happened.
However the document became a practical example of how the basic developmental needs of
adolescents could be incorporated into the intentional design of youth programs almost
regardless of organizational sponsorship or individual missions. A national training program for
youth organization executives and staff followed with support from the Lily Endowment. While it
died when the funding stopped, it too serves as a historical moment that transcended
organizational boundaries and tried to unpeel the onion-like layers of complexity that still define
the practice of youth work today.
Defining the field of youth development remains a challenge. In the late 1990s Stephen
Hamilton made an observation that continues to ring true today (Hamilton & Hamilton, 2004).
The term “youth development” is used in at least three different ways, referring to a natural

12
process of development, principles, and practices. All three are important, and they are logically
related. Each of the articles in this special issue works from this definition—or insight—in one
way or another. Whether “youth development” is a process, a set of principles, or a practice
depends on who is looking at it.
Hamilton made another important point: The practice of youth work preceded research on the
practice. “The youth development movement began with professionals and volunteers engaged
day-to-day with young people in their communities, in Boys and Girls Clubs, parks and
recreation programs, faith groups, families, essentially in settings or contexts other than schools
. . . Youth development is not unique in arising from practice” (Hamilton & Hamilton, 2004, p.
ix). By linking current practice to the history of youth work practice in the United States, we see
the evolution of an idea more clearly and come to understand that the practice of youth
development did not begin in the 1990s as much of the literature would suggest. Given the way
that the terminology is both new and philosophically entwined with the traditions and history of
hundreds of youth organizations, we can understand the confusion that arises when we start
talking youth work practice and youth development research – just as we encounter questions
when we begin to parse process, principles and practice. Readers of the articles presented here
will recognize some of the ambiguity and fuzzy borders characteristic of the field.
Special Issue Overview
In “Trends in Research Topics in the Youth Development Research Field,” Robert Barcelona and
William Quinn (2011) present an analysis of the content of published articles on youth
development research in five top-tier journals with the terms “adolescence” or “youth” in the
title. Their analysis shows that only 13% of the articles in these journals take a positive youth
development approach, which raises important questions about the attention Tier I research
journals devote to problems and deficit behavior. They observe that research on youth is not
the same as youth development research, a term that in itself is challenging to define. Their
review of the last decade raises issues around the need for publishing alternatives for research
on applied youth development and analysis of practice.
In their article, “Positive Youth Development: Models, Meanings and Measures,” Richard Lerner,
Jacqueline Lerner, Selva Lewin-Bizan, Edmond Bowers, Michelle Boyd, Megan Kiely Mueller,
Kristina Schmid and Christopher Napolitano (2011) use Hamilton’s process-principles-practice
definition of youth development to structure an invaluable summary and discussion of the most
influential scholarship undergirding each dimension of youth development. Their article reviews
different theoretical models of the developmental process, major conceptual frameworks for
infusing positive youth development into practice, and examples of organizations and programs
guided by a positive youth development approach. The authors argue the need to
systematically integrate the three dimensions of youth development scholarship and practice in
order to better understand the dynamic among them and move the field forward.
Jan Scholl and Amy Paster’s (2011) contribution to this volume, “Locating, Analyzing and
Making Available a Century of 4-H Research Studies,” describes a unique database they
compiled that includes over 3,400 studies of the 4-H Youth Development Program conducted
between 1911 and 2010. Their effort was part of the inspiration for this special issue’s
examination of the past 100 years. This research began with a goal of establishing the long
existence of a 4-H research base. Comments on topics through the decades give a glimpse of
organizational priorities over time. Although the studies in the database have not been fully
analyzed, they are available for today’s scholars to explore in their own work.

13
In their piece, “From Then to Now: Emerging Directions for Youth Program Evaluation,” Mary
Arnold and Melissa Cater (2011) look back on the emergence of youth development program
evaluation before considering three contemporary trends. They highlight a new focus on
evaluating program quality, the current organizational consideration of capacity building, and
the emerging evaluation approach of youth participatory evaluation. These trends raise
questions about the traditional “gold standard” of impact studies in light of scarce resources for
evaluation and different accountability demands.
Stephen Russell and Kali Van Campen (2011) contribute to the conversation in “Diversity and
Inclusion in Youth Development: What We Can Learn from Marginalized Young People,” which
provides a critique of the ways that the large national youth organizations founded at the
beginning of the 20th
century have engaged—or not—with new immigrant and GLBT youth, two
groups that are marginalized by organizations. The reader is challenged to recognize the basic
family constructs and cultural traditions that must be recognized and addressed if marginalized
young people are to be welcome and included.
In “The Many Faces, Features and Outcomes of Youth Engagement,” Rebecca Saito and
Theresa Sullivan (2011) report on research conducted to identify the core elements that are
common to youth program models featuring youth engagement at various levels and in
different ways. Created by practitioners in response to a comprehensive literature review and
the filter of their own experience, their Rings of Engagement offer a model that can be applied
to youth-adult partnerships, service learning, youth leadership and other youth engagement
program designs and strategies.
The important role youth workers have historically played in youth work practice is explored in
“The Evolving Role of Youth Workers,” by Lynne Borden, Gabriel Schlomer and Christine
Bracamonte Wiggs (2011). Their discussion of what might be gained and lost in the push to
certify or professionalize the youth development field raises the questions of whether youth
development is a field of practice, a profession, a discipline, an approach or even an
epistemological construct that applies to many allied practices and related fields such as social
work, formal education, recreation, residential care, afterschool and youth organizations.
In “Voluntary Youth-Serving Organizations: Responding to the Needs of Young People and
Society in the Last Century” Suzanne Le Menestrel and Lisa Lauxman (2011) examine the early
mission statements of 14 early national organizations providing programs and opportunities for
young people, and then compare early iterations to present mission language. Their approach
introduces major points in the evolution from older youth group work practices to things
shaping youth development work today. Their organizational matrix emphasizes the variety,
long life and responsiveness of these organizations.
Reed Larson and colleagues were asked to consider new directions for research. In “New
Horizons: Understanding the Processes and Practices of Youth Development,” Larson, Kang,
Perry and Walker (2011) startle us to attention when they claim, “We know a lot about youth
development, and we know very little.” In a plea to recognize the complexities of practice in
order to strengthen research, the authors use practical examples and suggestions to illustrate
the issues they raise for the field.
Finally, Dale Blyth was invited to discuss issues that have the potential to impact the direction
of the youth development field in the 21st
century. In “The Future of Youth Development:

14
Multiple Wisdoms, Alternate Pathways and Aligned Accountability” he highlights some of the
landmark events, publications and people who have shaped the out-of-school time world of
youth development programs in the 20th
century (Blyth, 2011). He makes the case that it will
take a more varied approach to research on processes, principles and programs as well as more
serious collection of quantitative data in order to build a strong youth development field. Lastly,
he offers a metaphor for conceptualizing program impact and a view of aligning accountability
for funders and policy makers.
Together these articles represent an evolving understanding of youth development program
practice and research. They shed light on how far the field has evolved, just as they stimulate
critical reflection on the issues and challenges that we carry forward.
Editors’ Reflections
Youth development is a very broad, interdisciplinary field. No single journal issue could deal
comprehensively with a century of research and practice. But the articles in this issue do
represent a variety of influential perspectives guiding scholarship, evaluation, practice,
organizations, and policy in the field today.
The thoughtful articles in this volume give much reason to be optimistic about youth
development as a vibrant practice and as a focus for substantive research. Reading the
submissions and working with the authors to craft a cohesive volume was an exciting
assignment. It presented an opportunity to look at ideas through new eyes and to reflect on
many of the trends and issues of our field as raised by these authors. As we reflected across
the articles, three important themes emerged for us that seem to be good grist for the 21st
century conversations moving forward:
• the divergent perspectives on definition, dimensions of practice and accountability,
• the value of translational scholarship bridging science and complex practice, and
• the importance of leveraging systems support for field building.
Divergent Perspectives on Definition, Dimensions of Practice and Accountability
There are a number of issues in the field about which wise and well-intended people simply do
not agree. They include tensions around definition, dimensions of practice and accountability.
These issues have implications for the practice, applied research and policy dimensions of this
work moving forward, and these tensions present both opportunities and challenges in different
ways for different subsets of players. They are grounded in historic traditions, academic
disciplines, institutional alliances and organizational imperatives. The key question is whether to
push quickly for resolutions or move more slowly to establish greater common ground for the
field.
First, there is no consistent usage or agreed upon definition of youth development. This
presents problems in general when speaking to those outside the youth development field and
particularly when representing U.S. practice and research to international colleagues. Hamilton
named this issue in the late 1990s, yet we still lack consensus. In this volume, Barcelona and
Quinn (2011) anchor their understanding of youth development in the world of practice. They
describe youth development as an approach to working with young people that is grounded in
the social and group nature of programs. They raise the question about the vague nature of the
term “youth development research,” and question how this is the same or different from
research on adolescents. In their article, Lerner and colleagues (2011) have adopted the term

15
“positive youth development” or PYD which seems to focus on young people while striving to
incorporate the principles and context shaping practice. Depending on the audience and
purpose, the field may be referred to as youth development, after-school, out-of-school time,
informal education, complementary learning, expanded learning opportunities or nonformal
learning (to name but a few). These are not irrelevant distinctions; they mean slightly different
yet significant things to different people. The question becomes, does the field draw strength
from this breadth of understanding or is it weakened by the absence of a single understanding
of the kinds of setting and programs that comprise the youth development field?
A second related issue is lack of agreement on important dimensions of youth development
practice, in terms of both which practitioners are included as well as how to advance the
profession. Borden et al. (2011) provide one broad, all-encompassing definition while others
prefer distinct descriptions that have meaning to a particular sector and represent the nuanced
nature of specific types of work. Related is the debate about professionalization and credentials
for adults working with and on behalf of young people. While youth workers generally seek the
respect and higher levels of compensation associated with professionalization, some raise
concerns about reducing practice to concrete, universal, procedural knowledge for fear of
stripping youth work of its essence or about professionalization serving a gatekeeping function.
Is the greater wisdom in establishing a single collective identity and profession or does the
strength of the field reside in the variety and independence of the different sectors?
A third area of tension involves accountability associated with research and program evaluation.
There is a continual call from funders and policy makers for evidence that youth programs make
a positive difference in the lives of young people, and for clarity about how impacts are
achieved. Practitioners and researchers alike regularly adjust their programmatic and research
agendas to fit ever-changing funding demands and priorities. We move across focusing on
academic success, personal and social skills, program quality or positive impacts on society.
While it is widely recognized that the field gains strength from a solid, scientific, experimental
research base, many argue that youth development in program settings can best be understood
naturalistically, ecologically, synergistically and culturally (see Larson et al., 2011). As Arnold
and Cater (2011) note, a limiting factor is that strong research and evaluations take time,
money and knowledge resources, things that most youth serving organizations do not have.
These competing positions and needs can be read as signs of discord, or as signs of the vital
unfolding of the field. They are anchored in the ambiguity and the complexity of youth
development research and practice. It is possible that these varied understandings and
perspectives are a natural consequence of a practice-based history, interdisciplinary grounding
and dedication to work with young people, a demographic about whom society still has very
mixed impressions and opinions. The character of youth work and whether it is primarily about
intervention, prevention or promotion is fundamentally related to whether young people are
individuals with human rights or a category of people who must continually prove their value
and try to influence what adults believe about them.
Responding to impatience from funders, policy makers and the field itself, there is a tendency
to “just do something” to address legitimate concerns about the boundaries, qualifications and
accountability of youth programs, often without acknowledging the complexities involved in all
these dimensions. In such a climate, it is tempting to impose the kinds of rules, structures and
procedures that have been accepted by some other fields albeit not always in the best interest
of young people. But in the big picture (think medicine, law, education) we are a young field. In
this 21st
century, we should take the time to define the field more clearly and to decide where

16
to be open and flexible, and where to be more prescriptive. This should be guided by the
lessons of history, the converging findings of research, the missions and purposes of
organizations, the philosophy and beliefs of youth workers, the requirements and
accountabilities of funders, the needs of young people, and the priorities of families and
communities.
The Value of Translational Scholarship Bridging Science and Complex Practice
The arena of translational scholarship is one with great promise to strengthen and focus the
youth development field on the issues of importance. There are professions where the bridge
between science and complex practice is soundly constructed. The field of professional medicine
deals with the full complexity of the human system—the body—and it has an effective
mechanism for bridging scientific knowledge directly into practice. That mechanism is the
doctor. This highly trained, highly skilled, highly paid practitioner is taught the disciplinary
foundations (e.g., biology, chemistry, physiology, pharmacology) that contribute to
understanding how to promote health and treat disease. The education and apprenticeship
process is a lengthy one. Doctors are taught how to assess new findings from research in these
contributing disciplines and translate them into evidence-based practice. Because the human
system is so complex, the field of medicine split into distinct specialties around each of the
body’s systems. We have no comparable bridging in our field to deal with the full complexity of
the system of psycho-social development and to promote social/psychological health and
development.
We are not advocating that youth work follow in the footsteps of medicine. We do, however,
need to fill these functions of distilling, translating and disseminating good science on human
development into the daily practice of promoting youth development. There is increasing
recognition that young people are complex, developing organisms that need to be understood
holistically in order to promote the achievement of positive life outcomes. In the last 10 years
scholars such as Richard Lerner, Peter Scales, James Connell and Michelle Gambone, as well as
the National Research Council, have begun to translate the science of developmental research
into the practice of youth development. But there have been no significant commitments of
funds or avenues to systematically take the frameworks and implement and study them as a
piece.
In order to move forward in any meaningful way with achieving population-wide healthy
outcomes for youth, we need systematic approaches to work on these bridging functions:
• distill research findings and translate them for practical application,
• create and make available tools for teaching and training,
• study and test the new strategies in practice settings, and
• make findings and recommendations for practice widely available.
At present, important new research relevant to work with young people is largely inaccessible to
the working professionals who need it the most. There is a pressing need for a coordinated,
ongoing effort to sort and disseminate findings from developmental science so that what is
learned can be put into practice. A systematic effort or process is required to distill the most
important findings from academic/scientific research from multiple disciplines (e.g. psychology,
sociology, education) on an ongoing basis, translate them into what people working with youth
should do and disseminate this knowledge.

17
For example, just in this volume (Lerner et al. 2011; Russell & Van Camp, 2011) there is a
wealth of important research referenced that can and should play a key role in what
developmental supports are put in place for young people. This includes research on sense of
purpose, assets, motivation, active engagement, systems theory of context influences,
resilience, thriving, diversity and inclusion. Barcelona and Quinn (2011) point out that
professional journals often ignore practice and fail to provide sorting mechanisms to identify the
processes and experiences that are the most important in the day-to-day practice with youth.
The creation of training and curricula follows the identification of important social psychological
mechanisms, setting features and such. Currently each organization is left on its own to either
develop or purchase curricula that fit their mission, if any are available. For example, we know
the critical importance of including youth in meaningful decision making across all settings, but
any youth worker will tell you that they need tools and training on how to do this effectively.
Even with a large scale effort like the National Research Council research summary (2002) there
was no follow up with creating training and tools based on the findings.
Once the tools for application are created and made available, practitioners and researchers
together need the opportunity to practice, refine and study their effectiveness in learning
laboratory like settings. Reciprocal respect and collegial inquiry are required to make this
successful. In medical science there is a clear recognition of the need to study processes first in
a controlled setting using rigorous methodology where important factors can be controlled and
varied. In the science of human development we try to implement the same rigorous scientific
methodology in uncontrolled environments with too many variables. We are bombarded with
calls for “gold standard” experimental design research, but we are left with having to try to
figure out how to graft this type of research onto naturally occurring programs that have their
own history, systems, needs and agendas. We have not had a systematic process of ongoing
refinement and restudy that allowed us to actually determine what could work. We need
something more like the High Scope learning lab that yielded a wealth of practice standards,
training and curricula that changed the face—and effectiveness—of early child care.
At the same time we cannot ignore the importance of having scientists move into the naturally
occurring settings of youth programs and organizations. Understanding the complexity of the
relationships among setting features, activities and the development of the human being
requires deep research to begin to untangle associations and develop hypotheses for study in
more controlled environments. Translational scholarship with researchers and practitioners
mutually engaged around the common thread of youth development has the potential to align
the field around a defined interdisciplinary core to the benefit of both.
The Importance of Leveraging Systems Support for Field Building
In framing this special issue, the editorial board expressed a preference to focus on research
related to programs and organizations; consequently attention to youth policy and supportive
systems (such as intermediaries, foundations, collaborations and networks) is largely absent.
Still, our editorial conversations kept circling back to the idea that a broad research approach
over time along with serious attention to translational scholarship has great potential to
influence the contested issues, and to gradually bring greater consensus, definition and
alignment to the youth development field.
Blyth (2011) makes a compelling argument that real impact happens and important discoveries
are made within the program environment. Likewise Larson and colleagues (2011) argue that
more program level observation will benefit scholars and practitioners. Neither suggests an

18
emphasis on programs alone. Yet the inclination of people inside and outside the field to see
youth development practice simply as a collection of programs can mask the critical nature of
systems support that is required if the field is to grow and thrive. Strong and influential systems
play a critical role in influencing youth policy, creatively linking systems impact and public
accountability, and supporting the bridging work that serves the field broadly. Examples include
the Carnegie Council of Adolescent Development’s report A Matter of Time: Risk and
Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours (1992), the Forum for Youth Investment’s policy and
professional development contributions, and the W.T. Grant Foundation’s continued
commitment to research and scholarly excellence in the field.
Perhaps it is in attention to systems building, translational scholarship, and research and
practice clearly labeled as youth development that the field of youth development will come to
maturity. With strong system support for professional development, quality improvement,
scholarly opportunities for practitioners in referred journals, and effective bridging of scientific
research and practice, many of the conundrums of definitions, boundaries, professionalism and
accountability will work themselves out in logical sequence. With systems to support full rights
and participation of young people, organizations and programs will more easily accept the
robust role young people can play in their personal growth and development.
As editors, we thank the editorial board of the Journal of Youth Development ~ Bridging
Research and Practice for the opportunity to work with contributing colleagues to frame these
ideas and critiques of issues in the field of youth development in the 20th
century. The process
certainly inspired us – and we hope these articles stimulate conversations and thinking for you
as well.
References
Arnold, M.E., & Cater, M. (2011). From Then to Now: Emerging Directions for Youth Program
Evaluation. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3). Retrieved from
http://web.memberclicks.com/mc/page.do?sitePageId=101250&orgId.naeha
Barcelona, R.J., & Quinn, W. (2011). Trends in Youth Development Research Topics: An
Integrative Review of Positive Youth Development Research Published in Selected Journals
Between 2001-2010. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3). Retrieved from
Blyth, D.A. (2011). The Future of Youth Development: Multiple Wisdoms, Alternate Pathways,
and Aligned Accountability. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3). Retrieved from
Borden, L.M., Schlomer, G.L., & Wiggs, C.B. (2011). The Evolving Role of Youth Workers.
Journal of Youth Development, 6(3). Retrieved from
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experiential ecology of education. Educational Researcher, 5(9),
5-15.
Cremin, L.A. (1964). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education,
1876-1957. New York: Vintage Books.

19
Cremin, L.A. (1988). American education: The metropolitan experience 1876-1980. New York:
Harper & Row.Hamilton, S.F. & Hamilton, M.A. (Eds). (2004). The youth development
handbook: Coming ofage in American communities. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Konopka, G. (1973). Requirements for healthy development of adolescent youth. Adolescence,
8(31), 2-25.
Larson, R.W., Kang, H., Cole Perry, S., & Walker, K.C. (2011). New Horizons: Understanding the
Processes and Practices of Youth Development. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3). Retrieved
from http://web.memberclicks.com/mc/page.do?sitePageId=101250&orgId.naeha
LeMenestrel, S.M., & Lauxman, L.A. (2011). Voluntary Youth-Serving Organizations: Responding
to the Needs of Young People and Society in the Last Century, 6(3). Retrieved from
Lerner, R.J., Lerner, J.V., Lewin-Bizan, S., Bowers, E.P., Boyd, M. J., Kiely Mueller, M., et al.
(2011). Positive Youth Development: Processes, Programs, and Problematics. Journal of Youth
Development, 6(3). Retrieved from
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). In J. Eccles & J. Gootman (Eds.),
Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Russell, S.T., & Van Campen, K. (2011). Diversity and Inclusion in Youth Development: What
We Can Learn from Marginalized Young People. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3). Retrieved
from http://web.memberclicks.com/mc/page.do?sitePageId=101250&orgId.naeha
Saito, R.N., & Sullivan, T.K. (2011). The Many Faces, Features and Outcomes of Youth
Engagement. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3). Retrieved from
Scholl, J., & Paster, A. (2011). Locating, Analyzing and Making Available a Century of 4-H
Research Studies, 1911-2010. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3). Retrieved from
© Copyright of Journal of Youth Development ~ Bridging Research and Practice. Content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without copyright holder’s express written
permission. However, users may print, download or email articles for individual use.

20
Trends in Youth Development Research Topics:
An Integrative Review of Positive Youth
Development Research Published in Selected
Journals Between 2001-2010
Robert J. Barcelona
Clemson University
rbj@clemson.edu
William Quinn
Clemson University

21
Volume 6, Number 3, Fall 2011 Article 110603FA002
Trends in Youth Development Research Topics:
An Integrative Review of Positive Youth
Development Research Published in Selected
Journals Between 2001-2010
Robert J. Barcelona and William Quinn
Clemson University
Abstract: The body of knowledge related to positive youth
development has grown in the last two decades, yet there have been
few, if any, systematic investigations of the research base in the field.
Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to identify the trends in
research topics and approaches within the field of positive youth
development over the last 10 years by examining five top-tier research
journals plus one research-to-practice journal. Results revealed that only
19% of the manuscripts published in all of the selected journals had a
positive youth development focus, and this was reduced to 13% when
just the five top-tier research journals were considered. Analyses of the
positive youth development manuscripts pertaining to population
characteristics, methodology, research setting, and topical areas provide
a snapshot of the trends and gaps in the body of knowledge related to
youth development, and have implications for future research efforts in
the field.
Introduction
Over the past 20 years, the field of youth development has witnessed a shift in practice from
single issue programs that address specific problem behaviors to more comprehensive
strategies that provide broad supports for all youth focusing on their needs and competencies.
Prior to the 1990s, the basic idea was that positive development was defined by the absence of
problem behavior (Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Sesma, 2006; Lerner, 2005). In the last 20
years, there has been a movement away from viewing youth as “problems to be managed” to
one that views them as assets capable of influencing their own development (Roth, Brooks-
Gunn, Murray, & Foster, 1998). However, there have been few or no published studies that
provide a systematic investigation of the body of knowledge that encompasses the field of

22
positive youth development. This special issue of the Journal of Youth Development provides a
golden opportunity to undertake this challenge.
One useful method for determining research trends within a particular discipline is to conduct
an integrative review of the literature within the field. Integrative reviews are systematic
analyses of the research literature, with the intention of more fully grasping the issues and
topics addressed in the overall body of knowledge (Jackson, 1980). To date, there have been
no known integrative reviews published that cover the broad discipline of positive youth
development. While Bocarro, Greenwood, and Henderson (2008) conducted an integrative
review of research related to youth development, they delimited their study to just those
articles published in four recreation and leisure studies journals.
Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to examine the trends in research topics and
approaches within the field of positive youth development, by focusing on four key areas:
population characteristics, methodology, research setting, and topical areas covered. This
exploration will allow scholars and practitioners to make generalizations about the youth
development research, and assess the overall body of knowledge relative to what needs to be
known about the field. Researchers can also identify gaps in topic areas and methods that can
ultimately provide an agenda for future research directions.
Literature Review
Integrative reviews have been conducted on numerous topics related to youth in the past ten
years. For example, such approaches have been used to understand the experiences of
immigrant and ethnic minority children (Guiberson, 2009; Stodolska, 2008; Telzer, 2011),
adolescent peer experiences (Kingery, Erdley, Marshall, Whitaker, & Reuter, 2010), emotional
regulation (Chambers, Gullone, & Allen, 2009), sports coaching (McCullick et al., 2009), and
family resiliency (Benzies & Mychasiuk, 2009). Integrative reviews have been undertaken to
understand trends in topical content and methods, such as Graham and Ismail’s (2011) study
conducted in the field of community psychology. Of particular interest to this study is Bocarro,
Greenwood, and Henderson’s (2008) integrative review on youth development and recreation.
While the disciplines vary in the papers mentioned above, all attempt to provide some guidance
to research investigators regarding the direction of the accumulation of knowledge. Because
journal articles are indicators of the patterns of thinking that help to define specific fields, it
makes sense that scholars and practitioners would be interested in the aggregated body of
knowledge that helps to define a particular disciplinary domain (Graham & Ismail, 2011). As the
field of youth development has matured, a case can be made that it is time to look more
systematically at the research efforts in the field. By doing so, researchers and practitioners can
utilize the knowledge base to inform key stakeholders in a manner that optimally contributes to
youth well-being.
Background and Approach
One of the methodological challenges in identifying trends in youth development research is
reasonably identifying what constitutes “youth development” research. There is a long and rich
history of research in adolescent development that focuses on cognitive, physical, social, and
emotional maturational processes (Lerner, 2005; Pittman & Wright, 1991). While this body of
knowledge is a useful platform to frame an understanding of adolescent development, the term
youth development is generally understood to be the application of this knowledge to
intentional strategies for promoting positive youth well-being.

23
Youth development encompasses a specific set of principles and practices that help to mold and
shape the developmental process. These principles generally include a focus on the assets and
strengths of young people, as opposed to a focus on understanding problems or deficits (Roth
& Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Youth development principles also focus on supportive adult
relationships, healthy and stimulating environments conducive to learning and skill attainment,
formation and availability of challenging programs and activities, and recognition of the
important role that youth themselves play in the process of their own well-being (Hamilton,
Hamilton, & Pittman, 2004; Pittman & Wright, 1991). Youth development is put into practice
within contexts and settings that are safe, appropriately structured, foster supportive
relationships, provide opportunities to belong, model positive social norms, support efficacy and
mattering, provide opportunities to build skills, and provide a dynamic flow among various
ecological systems (i.e. family, school, community) (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). In sum, youth
development is both theoretical and applied, particularly within community-based programs and
organizations.
For the purposes of this review, it was important to be able to distinguish between “research on
youth” and “youth development research.” Based on the general principles and practices of
youth development explained above, we attempted to focus on studies that
1) were youth-focused;
2) selected variables that addressed relationships, supports, opportunities, programs, or
services that were intentionally designed to influence positive well-being;
3) focused on strengths and assets as opposed to studies addressing specific problems or
deficits; and
4) explored the profession of youth development, including studies on training, staffing,
and leadership.
To establish the boundaries for this review and to capture the academic discipline of youth
development, we did not include studies that were primarily focused on general adolescent
development or maturational processes, or those studies that were focused primarily on
particular problem behaviors (e.g. binge drinking, depression, eating disorders, suicide).
One of the other methodological challenges with a youth development research review is to
define an age span that comprises the term “youth.” Most scholars have noted that the term
“youth” encompasses approximately the second decade of life, corresponding to between 10
and 20 years of age (Hamilton, Hamilton, & Pittman, 2004; Lerner 2005). However, there is
growing support for the notion that the definition of youth is extending in both directions. For
example, Larson (2002) discusses the idea of a raised bar for adulthood in the twenty-first
century, particularly as a result of increasing educational demands and employment constraints
placed on adolescents. Others have noted the increasing occurrence of early pubertal
development, particularly for girls (Steingraber, 2007), and the increasing cognitive capacities of
young people as a result of their access to information (Costello, Toles, Spielberger, & Wynn,
2001). As such, it makes sense that youth development research could apply to those younger
than ten and up to 25 years of age. To capture this, we included studies with children as young
as 8, and included studies on young adults through age 25.
Finally, a decision had to be made regarding the publication years to include in the analysis.
While youth development research has historical roots in developmental science that stretches
back to the contributions of G. Stanley Hall (1904), much of what was published prior to the

24
early 1990s focused on the absence of deficits or problem behaviors (Lerner, 2005; Pittman,
Irby, & Ferber, 2001; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Although researchers, practitioners, and
policy makers were talking about positive youth development prior to the early 1990s, most
point to Pittman and Wright’s (1991) paper, Bridging the Gap: A Rationale for the Role of
Community Organizations in Promoting Youth Development as being critical in shifting the focus
from thinking of youth as “problems to be managed” (Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Murray, & Foster,
1998) to one that views them as assets capable of influencing their own positive development
(Costello et al., 2001). However, a decade after Pittman & Wright’s (1991) seminal paper, some
scholars contended that there was still a lack of research and theory in positive youth
development (Larson, 2000), while others were still trying to define the characteristics of a
positive youth development program (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003).
Thus it made sense, both from a practical and theoretical perspective, to examine the trends in
positive youth development research over the past 10 years (from 2001 to 2010). Precedence
has been set with various disciplines conducting decade reviews. For example, decade reviews
have been conducted on the research literature in related disciplines such as family studies
(Bogenschneider & Corebett, 2010; Kosutic & McDowell, 2008; D’Onofrio & Lahey, 2010), and
healthcare (Chesla & Rungreangkulkij, 2001). In addition, the Journal of Research on
Adolescence has recently published a special issue featuring a series of decade reviews covering
a range of youth-related topics (Russell, Card, & Susman, 2011).
Methodology
While many scholarly journals publish research articles that pertain to children and adolescents,
only a few focus solely on this population. For this study, we selected journals that had the
words “youth” and/or “adolescent” in their title because such a strategy allowed us to capture a
large body of research that would pertain to the field of youth development. To better
understand the nature and extent of positive youth development research since 2001, we
identified six journals that fit the criterion for review – Journal of Research on Adolescence
(JRA), Journal of Adolescence (JA), Journal of Adolescent Research (JAR), Youth & Society
(Y&S), Journal of Youth and Adolescence (JYA), and Journal of Youth Development (JYD). The
first five journals were chosen because they are widely accepted as top-tier scholarly journals
that focus on publishing work specifically related to youth and adolescence. The Journal of
Youth Development was included because it has a primary role as an outlet for disseminating
youth development research, and because it provides practitioner-focused research on youth
development programs and contexts.
It is well understood that research about youth is published in a wide-variety of journals
covering a range of professions that serve youth. For example, youth-oriented research is
typically published in noted journals such as Developmental Psychology, Journal of Community
Psychology, Applied Developmental Science, Child Development, and the Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology. Research on youth development has also appeared in journals
specific to fields such as social work (e.g. Social Work Review), family studies (e.g. Journal of
Marriage and Family), outdoor education (e.g. Journal of Experiential Education), health (e.g.
Journal of Adolescent Health), and leisure studies (e.g. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration). While important contributions to youth development have been found in these
journals, we delimited our analysis to only those journals that focus entirely on youth-related
topics and that publish research from a broad array of professional settings and disciplinary
topics (i.e. that are not focused on a particular aspect of youth development, such as health or
recreation).

25
Procedures
Both of the authors and two trained graduate students in Clemson University’s Youth
Development Leadership Program each were assigned journals to scan for evidence that
published articles met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Titles that clearly met the general
principles and practices of youth development were retained. For example, words or terms such
as well-being, adjustment, leadership, career planning, health, support, sports participation, and
academic success led to inclusion. Titles that were clearly outside the scope of the project (i.e.
those that were focused on general developmental processes or had a primary focus on deficits
or problem behavior) were excluded.
The research team met to review the titles of all selected articles within the 2001-2010 time
frame. The final list of manuscripts retained for analysis was determined following a discussion
by the team and by consensus agreement. In a few cases no clear decision could be reached.
This was usually because titles were ambiguous in that they included words that reflected
positive youth well-being as well as terms that connoted adolescent developmental processes or
problem-behaviors. In these cases, the research team collectively reviewed the abstract to
determine whether to include the manuscript for analysis.
Following selection of the sample of articles to be included, the research team reviewed their
assigned articles and categorized key pieces of information describing the study. Both deductive
and inductive coding schemas were used in the process of categorizing articles (Graham &
Ismail, 2011). For example, deductive coding was used to categorize publication type,
methodologies employed, and population characteristics. Inductive coding was used to identify
key topical areas and themes. For example, each member of the research team identified three
to five key words that captured the general topical areas covered in their assigned articles. The
team combined their list of key words, removed redundancies, and met to discuss common
topical areas that emerged from their individual analyses. From this, a list of 23 topical areas
was developed. These 23 topical areas were further refined and collapsed into 12 dominant
themes found in the manuscripts that were reviewed. The research team then categorized their
assigned manuscripts based on the topical area/s that best represented the research. A non-
exclusive categorization system was used to capture the breadth and scope of the research
focus, so manuscripts were often placed into more than one topical area (Bocarro, Greenwood,
& Henderson, 2008; Graham & Ismail, 2011).
Data Analysis
Figure 1 shows the breakdown of manuscripts retained for analysis by journal title as a
percentage of all of the manuscripts published in the selected journals between 2001-2010. The
results of this effort yielded the following: Journal of Research on Adolescence (26 out of 284,
9%), Journal of Adolescence (50 out of 659, 8%), Journal of Adolescent Research (37 out of
317, 12%), Youth & Society (73 out of 216, 34%), Journal of Youth and Adolescence (99 out of
760, 13%), and Journal of Youth Development (all research manuscripts = 177). Thus, the
percentage of research manuscripts categorized for this study as positive youth development
research was 462/2413 (19%). Eliminating the Journal of Youth Development reduced this
number further to 285/2236 (13%).

26
Figure 1
Percentage of Manuscripts Published in Research Journals from 2001-2010
Note: JRA = Journal of Research on Adolescence, JA = Journal of Adolescence, JAR = Journal of
Adolescent Research, Y&S = Youth & Society, JYA = Journal of Youth and Adolescence. The Journal of
Youth Development was omitted here, as all 177 research articles were classified as having a PYD focus.
Population Characteristics
Table 1 includes the breakdowns of the population characteristics identified in this review. The
majority of positive youth development articles published (65%) dealt with early adolescence
(ages 13-15), and roughly half (52%) addressed late adolescence (ages 16-18). Approximately
1 in 5 articles (22%) focused on the key adolescence transition years (ages 10-12), and only
16% addressed the traditional college-age population. Only 5% of published articles addressed
ages associated with the transition to adulthood (ages 22-25).
With respect to sex and gender, there were few published manuscripts identified that focused
exclusively on either boys or girls, although 5% of manuscripts were girls-only studies.
Interestingly, we identified only one study published in the last ten years that was focused
exclusively on boys within a positive youth development context. The vast majority of the
manuscripts published included both boys and girls in their sample (87%).
Approximately 8% of the studies did not include youth in their sample frame, but instead
focused on key adult figures, such as parents, teachers, or youth serving professionals.
Manuscripts that included the perspectives of adults, either as the sole population studied or in
addition to youth, accounted for a relatively small number of the published studies on positive
youth development. For example, roughly 11% of studies included the perspectives of parents,
and only 7% included teachers, adult program leaders or youth development professionals.
Only 3% focused on multiple adult stakeholders.

27
Table 1
Population Characteristics
JRA JA JAR JYD Y&S JYA Total
Age
Under 10 1
(4%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
7
(4%)
5
(7%)
9
(9%)
23
(5%)
10-12 5
(19%)
6
(12%)
4
(12%)
32
(18%)
15
(21%)
38
(38%)
100
(22%)
13-15 13
(50%)
27
(54%)
23
(62%)
136
(78%)
48
(66%)
54
(55%)
301
(65%)
16-18 16
(62%)
30
(60%)
27
(73%)
56
(32%)
51
(70%)
58
(59%)
238
(52%)
19-21 3
(12%)
8
(16%)
13
(35%)
11
(6%)
19
(26%)
19
(19%)
73
(16%)
22-25 0
(0%)
1
(2%)
2
(5%)
1
(0%)
11
(15%)
8
(8%)
23
(5%)
Sex
Boys 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(1%)
1
(0%)
Girls 2
(8%)
1
(2%)
1
(3%)
6
(3%)
9
(12%)
3
(3%)
22
(5%)
Both 23
(89%)
47
(94%)
35
(95%)
147
(83%)
56
(77%)
94
(95%)
402
(87%)
Adults
Parents
1
(4%)
4
(8%)
4
(11%)
19
(11%)
8
(11%)
14
(14%)
50
(11%)
Professionals 6
(23%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
18
(10%)
4
(6%)
4
(4%)
32
(7%)
Other 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3
(2%)
1
(1%)
1
(1%)
5
(1%)
Multiple 0
(0%)
1
(2%)
5
(14%)
3
(2%)
2
(3%)
3
(3%)
14
(3%)
Note: JRA = Journal of Research on Adolescence, JA = Journal of Adolescence, JYD = Journal of Youth
Development, JAR = Journal of Adolescent Research, Y&S = Youth & Society, JYA = Journal of Youth and
Adolescence.
Note2
: The “Age” category does not add to 100% because manuscripts could be placed in multiple
categories; the “sex” category does not add to 100% because approximately 8% of the manuscripts did
not use youth in their sample frame, or because they did not specify the sex of their sample; the “Adults”
category does not add up to 100 because not all manuscripts included adult perspectives.

28
Methodological Approaches
Table 2 shows the breakdown of methodological approaches covered in the manuscripts
reviewed for this analysis. The vast majority (93%) of manuscripts published were empirical in
nature. For the purposes of this study, manuscripts were categorized as empirical if they
consisted of “original research where data collection or secondary analysis of data took place”
(Graham & Ismail, 2011, p. 127). Roughly 7% of the manuscripts published were non-empirical,
and could generally be described as literature reviews, methodology discussions, or comments
on theory. The Journal of Youth Development appeared more likely than the other major
journals to publish manuscripts of this type.
Most of the articles published (63%) used traditional quantitative data collection and analysis
techniques, including cross-sectional surveys, experimental or quasi-experimental design, or
secondary data analysis. Of those reviewed, the Journal of Adolescence was the most likely to
publish quantitative papers, although quantitative techniques were generally the methodology
of choice for a majority of the manuscripts reviewed. Approximately one-third (30%) of
manuscripts used qualitative or mixed methods. Qualitative methods included observation,
interviews, focus groups, case studies, or historical/content analysis techniques, whereas
multiple or mixed methods studies generally employed both quantitative and qualitative
approaches to answer their research questions.
Table 2
Methodological Approach
Methodological Approach N %
Quantitative Methods 292 63
Qualitative Methods 82 18
Multiple or Mixed Methods 54 12
Non-Empirical 34 7
Total 363 100.0
Table 3 provides a closer examination of the methodologies employed, both in the aggregate
and by journal. For example, cross-sectional surveys or questionnaires were the most frequently
used methodology (42%), followed by experimental or quasi-experimental designs (12%).
Studies that used experimental, pre-experimental or quasi-experimental designs were those
that made an effort to compare intervention effects with a suitable control group, or those
where subjects served as their own controls, such as studies using a pre-test/post-test
methodology (Creswell, 2009). Secondary data analysis accounted for 10% of the manuscripts
published on positive youth development in the journals reviewed. Youth & Society appeared to
have the largest percentage of studies utilizing secondary datasets.
The most frequently occurring qualitative technique was the use of interviews or focus groups
(13%), followed by case studies (3%). The Journal of Youth Development was the most likely
journal to publish case studies, reflecting its commitment to bridging research and practice.
Other qualitative techniques (e.g. direct observation of behavior, historical and/or content

29
analysis) were used in less than 2% of the published manuscripts related to positive youth
development. Multiple or mixed methods approaches accounted for approximately 12% of the
total number of manuscripts published on positive youth development in the past 10 years,
although more than 25% of the manuscripts published in the Journal of Research on
Adolescence utilized multiple or mixed methods. Tables 2 and 3 show the breakdown of
methodological approaches by journal and in the aggregate.
Table 3
Specific Methodologies Employed
JRA JA JYD JAR Y&S JYA Total
Survey
9
(35%)
31
(62%)
38
(22%)
14
(38%)
27
(37%)
73
(74%)
192
(42%)
Experimental
Design
1
(4%)
9
(18%)
40
(23%)
2
(5%)
1
(1%)
1
(1%)
54
(12%)
Direct Observation
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
4
(2%)
1
(3%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
5
(1%)
Interviews/Focus
Groups
4
(15%)
3
(6%)
26
(15%)
12
(33%)
9
(12%)
6
(6%)
60
(13%)
Case Studies
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
14
(8%)
1
(3%)
1
(1%)
0
(0%)
16
(3%)
Historical/Content
Analysis
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(1%)
0
(0%)
1
(0%)
Multiple or Mixed
Methods
7
(27%)
5
(10%)
18
(10%)
6
(16%)
13
(18%)
5
(5%)
54
(12%)
Secondary Data
Analysis
4
(15%)
0
(0%)
9
(5%)
1
(3%)
18
(25%)
14
(14%)
46
(10)
Literature Review,
Theory Paper or
Methodology
Discussion
1
(5%)
2
(4%)
28
(16%)
0
(0%)
3
(4%)
0
(0%)
34
(7%)
Total
26
(100%)
50
(100%)
177
(100%)
37
(100%)
73
(100%)
99
(100%)
462
(100%)
Adolescence
Research Settings
Table 4 provides a breakdown of the settings and contexts for youth development research. In
addition to population characteristics and methodology, manuscripts were categorized based on
the settings or contexts where research related to youth took place. Most studies took place in
school (43%) or community-based organizational settings (21%). Studies of youth within the
school context were dominant in all of the major research journals in the field. The Journal of
Youth Development was more likely than the other journals to publish studies that took place
within community-based organizational settings. Interestingly, fewer than 1 in 10 studies used
the home/family as a research setting (8%), although more than one-third (39%) of the

30
manuscripts published in the Journal of Research on Adolescence had this focus. Research that
took place within the neighborhood/community context was also underrepresented, with only
7% of manuscripts focusing on this ecology. Perhaps most surprisingly, none of the research
manuscripts covered were identified as having taken place exclusively in faith-based settings or
organizations.
A number of studies (21%) reported focusing on youth in multiple contexts. For example, the
physical site of the research may have taken place within an afterschool program, yet the
research questions themselves focused on academic achievement (school), family life
(home/family) and involvement in structured activities outside of school (community-based
organizations). As such, these studies did not focus on a specific youth development setting,
but attempted to answer questions related to a range of ecological contexts. Notably, more
than one-quarter of the manuscripts in Youth & Society and the Journal of Youth and
Adolescence focused on youth in multiple ecological contexts.
Table 4
Research Settings
Home/Family
10
(39%)
9
(18%)
5
(3%)
2
(5%)
6
(8%)
5
(5%)
37
(8%)
School
13
(50%)
32
(64%)
44
(25%)
18
(49%)
32
(44%)
59
(60%)
198
(43%)
Community-based
organization
0
(0)
3
(6%)
80
(45%)
4
(11%)
4
(6%)
5
(5%)
96
(21%)
Neighborhood/community
3
(12%)
3
(6%)
13
(7%)
4
(11%)
10
(14%)
1
(1%)
34
(7%)
Faith-based organization
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Non-specific/Multiple
0
(0%)
3
(6%)
35
(20%)
9
(24%)
21
(29%)
29
(29%)
97
(21%)
Total
26
(100%)
50
(100%)
177
(100%)
37
(100%)
73
(100%)
99
(100%)
462
(100%)
Adolescence
Topical Areas
A key component of this integrative review was the categorization of articles based on key
themes or topic areas. This allowed us to identify the major thrusts and topical gaps in the
research related to positive youth development in the manuscripts that we reviewed over the
past 10 years. We used non-exclusive coding so that manuscripts might be placed in multiple
categories to adequately capture the intent of the authors, and as a recognition that many of
these topical areas overlapped and were addressed within the same study. The 12 main topical
areas that emerged from the keyword analysis, along with the numbers and percentages of
manuscripts categorized in each area, are listed in Table 5, and described below:

31
Table 5
Topical Areas
Professional
Development
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
24
(14%)
0
(0%)
1
(1%)
0
(0%)
25
(5%)
Youth Activities
7
(27%)
6
(12%)
74
(42%)
13
(35%)
29
(4%)
28
(28%)
157
(34%)
YD Processes and
Outcomes
20
(87%)
32
(64%)
123
(70%)
15
(41%)
53
(73%)
32
(32%)
275
(60%)
Academic
Performance
12
(46%)
11
(22%)
33
(19%)
15
(41%)
16
(22%)
26
(26%)
113
(24%)
PYD Influence on
Risk Behavior
11
(42%)
23
(46%)
21
(12%)
3
(8%)
1
(1%)
19
(19%)
78
(17%)
Youth Engagement
16
(62%)
8
(16%)
79
(45%)
9
(24%)
13
(18%)
9
(9%)
134
(29%)
Resilience
3
(12%)
5
(10%)
8
(5%)
18
(49%)
3
(4%)
4
(4%)
41
(9%)
Asset- and Capacity-
Building
18
(69%)
26
(52%)
71
(40%)
2
(5%)
2
(3%)
41
(41%)
160
(35%)
Health and Wellness
3
(12%)
6
(12%)
12
(7%)
3
(8%)
15
(21%)
26
(26%)
64
(14%)
Peer Relationships
3
(12%)
12
(24%)
7
(4%)
9
(24%)
12
(16%)
20
(20%)
63
(14%)
Family
13
(50%)
21
(42%)
15
(9%)
16
(43%)
21
(29%)
38
(38%)
124
(27%)
Youth/Adult
Relationships
4
(15%)
4
(8%)
15
(9%)
6
(16%)
8
(11%)
10
(10%)
47
(10%)
Adolescence
Note2
: The column denominator is the total number of articles included in the review by journal; the
denominator for the “Total” column is the sum of all of the included articles (N=462)
1. Professional Development. This topical area included manuscripts focusing on the needs
and issues related to youth development staff, program leaders, and volunteers. Studies
in this category tended to focus on issues related to professionalism, staff training,
professional education, and worker competencies. Only 5% of the manuscripts covered
in this review fit into this category. The Journal of Youth Development was the most
likely to publish manuscripts related to professional development in the youth
development field.
2. Youth Activities. Manuscripts that were placed in this topical area included those that
focused on structured, intentional learning activities. This included manuscripts that

32
focused on youth development programs such as sports, camps, outdoor recreation, arts
and drama, music, and after-school programs. Approximately one-third (34%) of
manuscripts addressed specific youth development programs or activities. Again, the
Journal of Youth Development was the most likely journal to publish manuscripts in this
category.
3. Youth Development Processes and Outcomes. This topical area included manuscripts
focusing on assessing program effectiveness, identifying the benefits or outcomes that
accrue from participation in youth development programs, or examining how
participation affects different groups of youth (e.g. age, gender, race/ethnicity).
Manuscripts were also placed into this category that addressed the scalability of youth
development programs, or studies that focused on activity participation as a program
outcome. Almost two-thirds (60%) of the studies reviewed here were placed in this
category. Many of these articles focused on the socio-demographics of program or
activity participation, particularly regarding how program participation or outcomes
differed based on the background of the youth involved.
4. Academic Engagement. This topical area included manuscripts related to academic
performance, such as grades or test scores, and other areas of academic participation,
such as school attendance. Manuscripts that focused on school connectedness or the
school learning environment were also placed in this category. Almost one-fourth (24%)
of the manuscripts reviewed were categorized in this area.
5. Positive Youth Development Influence on Risk Behavior. This topical area included
manuscripts that addressed issues of risk behavior reduction as a result of positive youth
development programs and strategies. Studies that addressed various forms of risk
behavior, such as problem drinking, sexual behavior, violence, bullying or other forms of
risk behavior were included in this analysis if the focus of the study related to the
influence of positive youth development programs or contexts on mitigating these
problems. Less than one-fifth (17%) of the manuscripts were categorized in this area.
The Journal of Research on Adolescence and the Journal of Adolescence appeared more
likely to publish articles that focused on the influence of positive youth development on
risk behavior reduction.
6. Youth Engagement. Manuscripts were placed into this category if they dealt with the
broad issue of youth participation and engagement. This included studies that focused
on youth involvement in the community, participation in service learning activities, youth
leadership roles, and youth voice. Less than one-third (29%) of the manuscripts
reviewed focused on youth participation and engagement. Approximately 62% of the
studies that were reviewed in the Journal of Research on Adolescence addressed this
topical area.
7. Resilience. This topical area included studies that focused on positive youth development
and youth thriving, particularly for young people living in high-risk environments. This
included studies that addressed coping strategies, positive adjustment, and protective
factors. Only 9% of the studies that were reviewed focused on issues related to
resilience, although 49% of the papers reviewed in the Journal of Adolescent Research
addressed some aspect of resilience.
8. Asset- and Capacity-Building. Manuscripts placed in this topical area included those that
addressed the skills and competencies of youth. This included studies that incorporated
models such as the 40 Developmental Assets, the Five C’s, or that focused on skills such

33
as initiative, goal setting, effort, pro-social behavior, team functioning, and problem
solving. More than one-third of the studies reviewed (35%) were placed in this category.
9. Family. This topical area included manuscripts focusing on family dynamics as they
contribute to positive youth development. Manuscripts that were placed in this area
included those that focused on family support, family rituals, parent involvement, sibling
relationships, and family communication. Surprisingly, only 27% of the manuscripts
reviewed addressed issues related to the family, although exactly half of the studies
reviewed in the Journal of Research on Adolescence had this focus. At the other end of
the spectrum, only 9% of the studies in the Journal of Youth Development appeared to
have a focus on the family.
10. Health and Wellness. Manuscripts that were placed in this category were those that had
a specific focus on physical health. This included papers that focused on physical activity
promotion, maintaining or achieving a healthy weight, and healthy eating and nutrition.
Despite the increasing attention given to adolescent health and physical activity, only
14% of the studies reviewed addressed health and wellness issues.
11. Peer Relationships. This topical area included studies that addressed issues related to
peer support, friendships, peer-to-peer mentoring or other forms of positive peer
relationships. Approximately 14% of the studies reviewed focused on peer relationships,
with the highest percentage of studies in this area appearing in the Journal of
Adolescence and the Journal of Adolescent Research.
12. Youth-Adult Relationships. Manuscripts placed in this category focused on the positive
roles of non-parental adults in the lives of youth, including mentoring relationships, non-
parental adult support, and role modeling. Despite the importance of non-parental adult
role models and mentoring in the lives of youth, only 10% of the articles published
addressed this topic directly. It appeared that most of the published studies in this area
focused on formal mentoring programs.
Discussion and Recommendations
Integrative reviews provide a big-picture snapshot of the research literature and can help
provide an understanding of the strengths and gaps in the body of knowledge of a particular
field. This integrative review focused on the positive youth development research published
between 2001-2010 in five top-tier youth journals (Journal of Research on Adolescence, Journal
of Adolescence, Journal of Adolescent Research, Youth & Society, and the Journal of Youth and
Adolescence), as well as one research-to-practice journal (Journal of Youth Development). The
findings and discussion related to the research on positive youth development provided in this
paper should be taken within the scope of this analysis. However, several observations can be
made with respect to the research covered in this effort.
First, the vast majority of research published in the major, top-tier youth journals did not fit into
the category of positive youth development research. Generally speaking, manuscripts
published about youth in the major research journals do not utilize a strengths-based approach
or provide an examination of the processes that foster positive youth well-being. These
approaches and processes come in the form of supports, opportunities, programs, and services
that intentionally leverage positive youth outcomes. This finding mirrors research conducted in
the field of positive psychology, where Myers (2000) found that the vast majority of articles
published since 1967 focused on negative emotions vs. positive emotions. This may be
reflective of the larger context in which research related to youth takes place. For example, it is

34
likely that funded research studies of the type that would most likely appear in top-tier research
journals still reflect a bias towards a problem- or deficit-based view of young people. While
several of the major research journals that were reviewed for this effort published one or more
special issues devoted to positive youth development or positive psychology (e.g. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, Journal of Youth and Adolescence), the major thrust of the papers in
the regular issues was not reflective of a positive youth development perspective.
Second, the key transition stages from late childhood to adolescence, and from adolescence to
adulthood appear understudied in the positive youth development literature. Much of the
published research on positive youth development was focused on what could be considered to
be the traditional definition of adolescence (roughly ages 13-18). While this makes sense, it is
generally understood that the terms youth and adolescence focus on the second decade of life
– roughly ages 10 to 20. Others have noted that the upper boundary of adolescence is now
extending into the early to mid 20s (Larson, 2002). These more expansive definitions of youth
are not widely reflected in the positive youth development research covered for this paper,
given that roughly 1 in 5 published studies focused on youth between the ages 10-12 and
between the ages of 19-21. Only 5% of published studies were found covering the ages of 22-
25.
Third, the clear majority of the research that was reviewed involved both boys and girls. This is
perhaps reflective of a positive youth development philosophy that addresses the strengths and
abilities of all youth, rather than focusing on deficits or differences between groups of youth. It
was interesting to note that while a small number of studies (5%) were exclusively focused on
girls, we identified only one study that focused exclusively on boys from a positive youth
development perspective.
Fourth, less than 10% of manuscripts included the perspectives of parents and the key adults
who have an influence on youth. While it stands to reason that youth development research
would focus primarily on young people themselves, it was curious that so few of the studies
involved adults in the research design, or asked questions directly pertaining to the roles of
parental and non-parental adults. In fact, only 8% of the total studies reviewed focused
exclusively on adults. Given the tremendous influence that key adults have on positive youth
development, more research focusing on this population needs to be undertaken.
Fifth, studies of youth that focus on critical developmental ecologies, such as the home and
family, or studies that addressed youth in the context of their neighborhoods or larger
communities, were underrepresented in this review. Of the studies reviewed in this analysis, the
largest percentage examined positive youth development within the context of school or after-
school settings, followed by studies that were situated within or involved youth in community-
based organizations. This is perhaps understandable, particularly given the amount of time that
youth spend in school and in structured programs and activities outside of school. However,
given that positive youth development is influenced by the interplay of multiple ecologies, more
research on the home, family, and neighborhood contexts and how they impact youth is
needed.
Sixth, a majority of the studies used a quantitative approach in answering the research
questions posed. Cross-sectional surveys—either in the form of paper/pencil or web-based
questionnaires—were the most popular data collection tool. A relatively small number of studies
engaged in secondary data analysis, such as those that answered questions using the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) (Dodge & Lambert, 2009) or the 4-H

100 Years of Research in Youth Development

100 Years of Research in Youth Development

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 100 Years of Research in Youth Development

Similar to 100 Years of Research in Youth Development (20)

More from Jonathan Dunnemann

More from Jonathan Dunnemann (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

100 Years of Research in Youth Development